The first guy gets the hammer, no questions asked tho…
I have to say I have absolutely no idea what any of the above means, you lost me at the first sentence. if it is intended to get across the strangeness of the situation then I’m afraid it is lost somewhat.
I get from it that you are privvy to a culture and terminology that I’m not and it is completely up to you what language you use of course but for the sake of clarity on a board about fighting ignorance, perhaps it can described in more accessible terms?
“Excuse me, Stewardess. I speak ‘degen’. (Poker degenerate. ).”
Give me a few minutes, and I’ll translate DragonAsh’s story for you.
OK, where was I? Jargon will be denoted by ‘whatever these marks are called’, and defined.
The game s/he’s talking about, No Limit Texas Hold 'Em, is a community card version of poker, with four rounds of betting (In order: Pre-flop, Flop, Turn River), two cards to each player, and ultimately five community cards. Pre-flop, all players receive their two cards, and make bets. Usually, there are no ‘antes’, initial forced bets from each player. Instead, the two players to the left of the ‘dealer’ place forced bets, called the ‘blinds’. In many games, the player closest to the dealer places a small forced bet, ‘small blind’ while the player to her left places a bigger forced bet, ‘big blind’. The big blind amount is important, as many of the betting amount calculations are based upon multiples of it, or of fractions of the total pot size. Players will often ‘buy in’ a game with 100-200 times the amount of the big blind. In a ‘match the stack’ game, a player is allowed to buy in to the largest amount of the chips held by a single player on the table. Like generous use of the doubling cube in backgammon, this means that lots of money can get on the table very quickly.
In DragonAsh’s story, the blind bets are 5 dollars each. Because they are forced to bet, they get the privilege of acting last for the Pre-Flop betting round. (The dealer gets to act last for the other three rounds). A ‘straddle’ is a blind bet, usually double the amount of the big blind, but here, it is 10 times the big blind. Since the straddle is blind, and is bigger than all other bets, the player betting a straddle gets the privilege of last action for the Pre-Flop betting round
Played usually in a card room with a ‘full ring’ of 9 to 10 players. The dealer is usually an employee, who does not take part in the hand, except to handle administrative tasks such as receiving and verifying bets, dealing cards, and declaring the winner. The person who would’ve been the dealer, were there not a separate dealer, is denoted with a plastic disc, the 'button’s. They act last.
Last is very important. Since who acts last is so important, all positions in a Hold’Em hand are denoted by who acts when. Let’s say there are 9 players. Starting at #9, and moving to the right for each antecedent position, is the Big Blind ‘BB’. 8th is the small blind ‘SB’. 7th is the dealer ‘button.’ 6th is the ‘cut-off’, 5th is often known as the 'hi-jack . The others are often denoted by their proximity to the first to act pre-flop, who is known as ‘Under-the-gun’ (UTG).
On to the hand. UTG appears to be the straddle here, and has King-Queen, a powerful hand, but often second-best. Players 2-5 opt not to match the straddle bet and fold. Player 6 has a 9 and 6 for his cards (To be continued)
If it was horse racing, he went to a small little racecourse and guessed the winner of every single race, even when the winner was a 200/1 outsider with a gimpy leg who only won because all the other horses fell.
He had an 85% win rate at that little racecourse, while down the road the greatest horserace betting person to ever walk the planet had what was the highest recorded winrate in history, but that was only 52%.
You don’t know how he keeps guessing the correct winner of the race, but do you really think everything is legit? Really?
Let’s see if I can finally get through this post.
Player 6’s 9-6 ‘offsuit’ (the cards are not of the same suit.) is a weak hand. It is not a favorite against any random player’s hand, and Player 6 still has the button, small blind, big blind, and straddle who could potentially have a better hand. Moreover, Player 6 is not raising the straddle bet, which might force those players later to act, to fold their stronger hands. In ‘deep-stack no-limit poker,’ which I’ll define as any hand where the lowest number of chips is still greater than 250 times the big blind, hands like 96 may have value. They may make a disguised powerful hand like a straight, easier than stronger hands like Ace-Ace. Disguised hands are important for inducing other players to place large amounts of their chips at risk, which they may not do if the community cards indicate a powerful hand is likely to be held by another player. The classic example is four community cards of the same suit ‘on the board,’ or a pair on the board. It is likely in the first case that someone has the fifth card in their hand to make a flush, or in the second case they may have a card that matches the pair, and gives them three of a kind, a full house, or four of a kind. Those are easier situations to see than a board which ‘flops’ (the first three community cards dealt) Ace-Eight-Seven. Which would give Player 6 an ‘open-ended straight draw’, any of eight cards dealt in subsequent betting rounds may give them the straight.
To play hands like these, the ‘implied odds’, the ratio of the remaining chips the opponent holds to the size of the bet the player must match, needs to be in the 40-50 to 1 range. Assuming they play it at all. It’s that unlikely that the straight opportunity will occur, that the straight will be the best hand at the conclusion of the hand, the ‘showdown’, and that the opponent will oblige the player and put all of their chips at risk with an inferior hand. However, because of the stack sizes DragonAsh later revealed, 2945 ish for the Small Blind, and 5000 ish for Chris Moneymaker in the Big Blind, we know that the players are not deep-stacked. If they were playing a normal 5-5 game, then the SB would have about 600 times the big blind in his chip stack, and Moneymaker would have about 1000 times. That’s certainly deep-stacked, but they are playing with a very large straddle. The SB has about 60 straddles in his stack, and the BB has 100. That isn’t deep-stacked enough to play a hand like 96 offsuit. So it’s perplexing why the player would choose to do so.
Anyway, we get to the button, who matches the bet or ‘calls’, with Ten-Eight suited. Both cards are of the same suit. This is a more powerful hand, with higher ranked cards, and only one card separating the player’s two cards. It’s easier to make straights with a ‘one-gap’ hand, than a ‘two-gap’ hand like 96. Plus, they are suited. They have a much better chance of making a flush than a non-suited hand. DragonAsh might raise there, and I agree. On the one hand, raising announces to the rest of the players that you have a powerful hand, and they should fold.
(Another inference will be made by the other players that you did not raise there: you do not have a really powerful hand, like a big pair such as Ace-Ace or King-King. The set of potential hands you may have, your ‘range’, is therefore ‘capped,’ it excludes powerful hands. This may be important in later betting rounds, if you were to bluff and try and convince the other players that you have a powerful starting hand, they will ask themselves, “Well, why didn’t s/he raise pre-flop then?” And your bluff may fail.) On the other hand, it puts more chips at risk.
The Small Blind, holding Ace King, a very powerful hand, raises to $245. This is roughly five times the straddle. A common rule of thumb for sizing preflop raises is to take the amount of the bet, and multiply it by 3 plus however many other people have matched the bet. Two people have matched the straddle, three plus two is five, so raise five times the straddle. Often a player will raise more than the norm if the player is in poor position. The small blind is the worst position in the hand for every betting round other than pre-flop. Conversely, if the player has poor position, and still raises, they are announcing to the table they have a very powerful hand. Further, position matters less and less as stacks shrink compared to the size of the pot. If your only decision is essentially to fold or go all in on a betting round, it doesn’t matter if you have poor position for subsequent betting rounds, as all of your decisions will already have been made.
OK, the Big Blind, seeing two people call the straddle, and the small blind putting in a big raise, decides to ‘3-bet,’ or ‘3!’, raises the bet yet again to 705. The minimum size of a raise is usually the amount of the original bet. So a minimum raise in this situation would be to 490. Commonly, 3-bets are not done to 3 times the bet, but some multiple between 2 and 3.
Let’s compare this bet to the size of the stacks. The small blind has only a little over 4 times the amount of chips, the big blind has about eight times the amount of chips. This is not a lot of chips for that implied odds calculation I mentioned a paragraph ago, and therefore a prudent player would not play ‘speculative hands’ like 96, T8s, small pocket pairs like 22-88, or other hands that require many community cards for them to make a powerful final hand. There just aren’t enough chips you can win in this situation to make up for all of the times the speculative hand doesn’t pay off.
I just realized I mistook who the straddle was. My guess is that it’s Postel, not UTG.
UTG, who is just to the right of the straddle, Postel at player #2, sees all of this action, rightly figures his KQ is no good, and folds. Postel defends his straddle by calling the 705 dollar bet, as he holds 54 offsuit. A very weak hand, that doesn’t have the implied odds to make a large enough hand to beat either SB or BB.
Still, he calls, because he knows that, with both of his opponents holding AK, and another opponent holding KQ, very few cards can be used by his opponents to make a pair. Normally, AK has six cards that can be used to make one pair, the three other Aces and the three other Kings, the same chances to make a pair as Postel’s 5-4. And their pair will be bigger. However now, there are only 1 King and two Aces remaining in the deck to make a pair, while Postel has all six of his ‘outs’, remaining cards that can improve his hand.
Entering this into a Hold Em equity calculator reveals that he wins the hand almost 48 percent of the time, while the two opponents tie or beat him the other 52 percent of the time. If he were to bet all of his chips, and the sb and bb were to as well, Postel be getting over two to one on his money, while being having a nearly even chance to win. This only holds true if he knows that both blinds are playing AK, or some other group of hands where each holds the other’s outs. If, on the other hand, one player had AA, and the other had KK or AK, Postel’s hand would be a giant underdog.
Well, both blinds go all in, Postel follows, and Postel wins. But it’s not something any rational poker player would do if they didn’t know the hole cards of the other three players.
Sorry for the length.
Gray Ghost’s explanation is about as thorough as you could ask for - some of it may well still be Greek to you if the concepts are unfamiliar, but careful reading and maybe a bit of googling some of the terms etc, and you should understand why Postle’s play here was so ridiculous that literally the only explanation is that he’s cheating.
Postle strictly speaking didn’t win the entire pot; they ran the board twice, and Postle won the second runout, AK split the first runout.
Gray Ghost, thanks for the lengthy breakdown. I watch, but don’t play, poker, and I’m weak on subtleties like pot odds and the importance of chip stacks. So I appreciate your taking the time to explain the hand. Ignorance fought!
Novelty Bobble wasn’t saying he didn’t understand the evidence of cheating, I think. DragonAsh cited that particular hand as an example of play that only made sense if Postle knew his opponents’ cards. But s/he did so using abbreviations and technical language obscure to non-poker players. NB was asking DA to explain it in more accessible language.
Thanks for the compliments. It’s a first draft, and everytime I tried to explain a piece of jargon, it brought up two additional things I needed to mention. For instance, I didn’t even get into ‘levels of thinking’ or ‘The Fundamental Theorem of Poker’, and I barely covered ‘range’, or ‘stack-pot ratio’: all of which really determine why people do what they do when playing a NLHE cash game.
I don’t think you would’ve needed to any RFID chicanery to think Postel was cheating. The 54o hand is bad enough, and would’ve been exposed at showdown, that alarm bells would be going off in my head that I was being cheated in some fashion.
It’s true that in that kind of betting situation, assuming a dynamic where people aren’t trying to outmaneuver each other with inferior starting hands, i.e., both heavy betters have the powerful hands they are representing with their bets, that AK is frequently one of the hands that a heavy better will hold. There are 16 combinations of cards that make AK, four of them suited. Compare this to the 6 combinations of cards that can make AA, or KK, or QQ. (18 combinations total, in case that was unclear)
Ballpark, with that range of hands, half of the time someone is ‘four-bet shoving’, re-reraising with all of their chips, it’ll be with AK. Now consider another player, also shoving all-in, what are the chances he also has AK? Well, with three Aces and three Kings available, there are 9 combinations of AK available (assuming someone with AK is calling a 4-bet shove; I probably wouldn’t.) There are 3 combinations of AA available, 3 combinations of KK available, and all 6 combinations of QQ. I doubt QQ is calling a 4-bet shove either. Assume they do half the time. 9 combinations of AK and 9 combinations of pocket pairs that beat 54o like a gong.
So half the time, and half of that time again, or 1/4 of the time, both opponents have AK and 54o does well. The other 3/4 of the time, 54o runs into a big pair and usually loses.
Everyone playing in that game knows this math. I read it I think in one of Sklansky’s books, but it’s like knowing musical scales if you want to be a musician, ‘it’s something you just have to know inherently through practice if you want to play this game well.’
Yes, thanks GrayGhost, I now know more but at the same time I’ve been introduced to even more areas of ignorance. 'Twas ever thus. Because it is such an alien world to me I can’t intuitively get a feel for the ebb and flow like I can for other sports and pastimes.
Also, yes I accept that the stats make the case for cheating pretty soundly. The null hypothesis can reasonably be rejected here. I guess my quibble was with the “caught” terminology. That implies a scooby-doo style ripping off of the overcoat to reveal the cheating mechanism beneath or a spy camera that catches a dodgy deal. That doesn’t seem to have happened in this case…yet…and that makes it all the more fascinating I guess.
I don’t how mysterious the mechanism is:
- The opponents’ cards had RFID chips that sent their values to a computer in real time.
- This information was supposedly safeguarded and only released after 30mins delay.
- Postel was looking at his phone during play.
- When players had their cards outwith the area where the RFID details would be picked up, Postel asked for them to be put back in it.
- The system for safeguarding the RFID data had some measure of involvement by humans.
It’s pretty clear from the above that Postel was receiving live RFID data on his phone showing him what the cards were. There’s some technical/system Qs to be answered about how that info was being sent to his phone, and who the insider was who helped him but these are just details.
It’s like if Postel were to disappear from home only to be sighted 12 hours later in Tahiti. We might not know if he flew private or commercial, but “He got on a plane” is a solution that covers the salient details of his movements. Similarly, “A confederate helped him access the RFID data” is a good enough answer as to how he was cheating. Like most magic tricks, it will seem a lot less impressive once you can see all the moving parts.
Doug Polk highlighted one hand where Postle had 7-2 offsuit, where Postle raised preflop and his opponent called who had Pocket Jacks,
The Flop was ACE-ACE-QUEEN, opponent check and Postle makes a bet and his opponent Called
The Turn was a blank, Opponent Checked, Postle bet, Opponent Called
The River was another blank, Opponent Checked, Postle bet, Opponent Called
Postle turned over his cards and immediately raises his hands in exasperation before his opponent turns over his cards. Its pretty apparent that Postle knew that his opponent was calling his bluff light because he was reacting before he could read the cards of his opponent.
That is one of Postle trademark moves, bluffing into hands that really aren’t that good. Having 9 high while his opponents have a mediocre hand. And doing it consistently
I literally watched people doing this this past weekend. Right in front of me. Ontario sucks.
I agree no one’s got time to punch in a shitload of data, but texting confederates their hands can be done very swiftly.
Okay, I’ll give you a simplified explanation.
In the game of Texas Hold-'em player are initially dealt two card - their hole or pocket. They make initial bets based on the strength of those two cards. Later, five more cards are dealt in the middle of the table - the board. Players must make a 5 card poker hand from their pocket and the board.
AK (Ace and King) is a strong starting hand and worth betting money on. To win, it would usually require an Ace or King on the board making a high pair with a big kicker. There are six cards or “outs” left in the deck that would make this happen. (Three Kings and three Aces)
54 (Five and Four) is a weak hand that should usually be folded. It has the same six “outs” to make a pair, but it would be a low pair that could be beaten by a higher pair.
In this specific case, the maths is different. Two players hold AK and one KQ. There is only one King and two Aces left in the deck. Their normal 6 outs have been reduced to 3. Meanwhile, Postle still has his six outs remaining. His chance of winning has just gone up a lot.
He also has a higher chance of making a straight than his opponents. 54 has four ways to make a straight, while AK has only got one way. And one of the queens is gone, so it’s even less likely.
So he makes a bet in a situation where most other people would fold. That is suspicious.
It isn’t rare for someone to make bad play and luck into a win. The above story could have happened by chance. But if he keeps doing it, it becomes more and more suspicious.
Thanks Peter, that makes more sense, less colourful but more sense.
So, regardless of whether you consider Postle himself to be “caught”, there’s probably still at least one other cheater who hasn’t been caught by any standard. Who was it who was leaking the information to him? I’m sure a lot of people would really like to know that.
Basically everything Ghost said. I’ve made speculative calls against multiple opponents making big bets, but there are usually specific factors: One hand a few months ago, at a 2/5 game, one player raised to $25, a few players called, a short-stack (player with not much money behind, in this case I think about $240) moved all in, and the player on the button also moved all-in for about $900.
Based on previous play, I knew the short-stack could be moving in with any pocket pair or suited broadway cards, anything from AK/AQ to KQ/KJ or even QJ/QT. He of course could also have QQ, KK or AA, but there are a lot more combos of smaller pocket pairs and suited broadways. If we include non-suited broadways, his range is even weaker.
The button shove was interesting. It’s unlikely anyone after him is going to call the $240, but it’s really really unlikely anyone would call the $900 without a really really big hand.
If the button player -had- a big hand, like AA or KK, why shove and guarantee nobody else can call? Why not just call the $240 and hope/pray someone behind him figures they have close to pot odds to call with AK/AQ or a small pocket pair that he’s way ahead of?
I had pocket 9s. Obviously if the button has a higher pocket pair than me, I’m in rough shape - but as noted above, I thought that was unlikely, I thought he had a hand like AK/AQ/AJs or something and he was trying to get heads-up against the small stack, given that AK/AQ or even AJ is probably ahead of the likely range for the short stack (suited broadways and pocket pairs).
99 is a small favorite against one player with AKs/AQs/AJs and ATs, about 52%/48%. So if I think the button has a hand like AK/AQ, it’s a coin flip. If I think the small stack could have a hand like KQ, pocket 9s do even better, since there are fewer cards that a hand like AK or AQ can hit to beat me.
So I called. Short stack had pocket 7s, button had AK. The short stack hit a 7 to win the main pot, my pocket 9s beat AK to win the side pot. The outcome really is irrelevant - in the short term, anything can happen, winning or losing in one specific pot shouldn’t matter (ie, don’t be results orientated).
Sometimes you make the correct play and lose, sometimes you make the wrong play and win. Over the long run, however, you come out ahead by making the correct play. In my case, I was happy that my read of the player and the situation was broadly accurate.
As far as ‘rejecting the null hypothesis’ - yeah. We’re talking about something like many, many, many standard deviations above what would be expected
Someone in the 2+2 thread said that the odds were greater than there are atoms in the universe or something.
Without clear-cut video evidence or a confession, could you get a jury of non-poker players to understand how overwhelming the evidence (statistical and otherwise) is?
Probably not, Casey Anthony walked out of the courtroom, FFS…
Re my example above: If I had 54o (not suited), there’s no way in hell I can call.
I’m a huge underdog against AK/AQ/AJ and the short stack could have a hand like QJ (ie, not sharing cards if the button has AK) or a pocket pair, and those hands have me crushed.
It’d be suicide to call unless I knew *specifically *both had AK.
You could probably do it with good expert testimony. You’d want to make sure to have a variety of experts, though: professional players (who haven’t played against Postle), casino employees, academic mathematicians, etc. The two points you want to hammer home are that:
1: There are many instances where Postle took what should have been a big risk (if he didn’t know the hole cards), (but which make sense if he does know them), and
2: There are many instances where Postle declined to take what should have been a small risk (if he didn’t know the hole cards), (but which he’d know were bad if he does know them)
Plus maybe a dose of
3: He’s more successful than we’d expect the most successful player to be out of (ludicrously large number of players), even though there are only (much smaller number) of actual players in the world.
If it were just 1, then he could argue that he just likes taking risks (and happens to get lucky). If it were just 2, then he could argue that he just likes avoiding unnecessary risk (and happens to get lucky). But both together isn’t consistent with any honest risk-taking profile. And 3 shows just how implausible his just happening to get lucky is.
All that said, you still really want to nail the confederate, and any evidence that would be useful against that person would probably also nail Postle himself to the wall.
The only thing I’d need is the hand where he folded KK pre-flop.